2 Kalachakra and Western Science

His Holiness: I wonder, do they really have one? In general, the Buddhist teachings are
for the sake of all sentient beings, not for just some specific ones.

Berzin: Some people have preconceptions about this.

His Holiness: Now in the case of Kalachakra, it speaks of Shambhala and a war against Lalo
invaders. It might have had a special relation with those who lived at the time of the well-known
Muslim invasions of India. I wonder if there might be some connection with those in general who
live in times of danger of war. But, as for a special relation with Westerners in general, I don't
know? What did Serkong Rinpochey say?

Berzin: Western people like science and technology, and Shambhala has a great deal of high
technology. Perhaps, there is a connection in terms of that.

His Holiness: Yes, you could say there is somewhat of a connection like that. But, what is
the point of that kind of connection? There is some similarity, but isn't it nearly always the
situation that people everywhere talk of war? So, that reason is not exact.

Berzin: Is there a relationship between Kalachakra and Western science?

His Holiness: I would say so.

Berzin: Sometimes, Your Holiness speaks of a common meeting point between Buddhism and
science, is it in terms of Kalachakra?

His Holiness: No. It isn't necessarily especially in terms of Kalachakra; it is general.
The basic belief in Buddhism is that if something is supported by reason, then we must accept it;
and if something has no reason or is unreasonable, then there is no need to accept it. Even
Buddha's own words must by interpreted in a different nonliteral way if they make no sense or are
unreasonable.

For instance, we accept quote "A" from the Buddha, while we do not accept quote "B." Why? If,
for the acceptability of the words of the Buddha, we had to rely on other words of the Buddha, then
those would require yet other words of the Buddha and it would be an infinite regression, wouldn't
it? Therefore, in practical terms, we need to explain some of Buddha's words as having only an
interpretable meaning (drang-don) and only selected others as being definitive (nges-don). If that is the case, it means that Buddha's ultimate meaning has to accord with
reason.

Now, in terms of scientific investigation, if something can be proven as fact, then it is
accepted. Science works on that basis, doesn't it? For instance, one scientist does an experiment
and something happens. Then, someone else conducts the same experiment and gets the same result.
This procedure establishes something as a fact of reality. That is how science works. Thus, the
basic attitude of science is that if something is a verifiable fact of reality, accept it; and if
it is not verifiable, don't believe it.

That is also the basic Buddhist attitude, isn't it, especially in Mahayana. I wonder if the
Hinayanatenet systems actually explain Buddha's words as having a difference of interpretable and
definitive meaning. Probably, they do not. In them, it is pervasive that all of Buddha's words are
definitive. However, the Mahayana tenet systems explain the two – Buddha's words that are
interpretable and those that are definitive.

If this is the manner of assertion, then, as I have already explained, deciding what is
definitive falls on reason. It can't be based just on faith. If that is the case, then if
scientists find some concrete result or proof that there are no future lives, no rebirth – if they
can actually prove that – we must accept it as the Buddhist basic attitude. Thus, the fundamental
approach in Buddhism is one that accords with fact and reason. That is one point.

Now secondly, there are specific explanations on which both Buddhism and science agree. For
example, Buddhism asserts that all phenomena that are conditioned or affected by other phenomena
degenerate from moment to moment, without ever remaining still. Everything continuously changes
from moment to moment, subtly, never staying static. Scientists also agree that physical phenomena
subtly change each moment, without ever staying still – namely, because they depend on atoms – and
yet, on a gross level, they appear not to change. It is not necessary to prove that they appear to
remain the way they are, without any change: we can see that with our own eyes. So, regarding the
point that on a gross level things seem to remain still, but on a subtle level they don't remain
still for even a moment, science and Buddhism agree that this is fact.

Further, there is relativity; namely, the theory that things dependently arise. Anything that
exists is established as being dependent on or relative to other things. This is also common
between the two systems. Although scientists do not discuss unaffected (static) phenomenon, still
they agree that at least things with form or which occur over time all arise dependently on other
factors, for example on causes and conditions. Their identities are established in relation to
factors other than themselves.

The latest thing scientists are discussing in terms of matter concerns quantum theory and
quarks. They discover and are beginning to understand that this extremely subtle level of matter is
intimately connected with the perceiver. In other words, the mind that cognizes this level as its
cognitive object becomes involved.

[For example, the time and size of an object is relative to the time and
speed of the object and of the observer. The direction and speed of the observer relative to the
direction and to the speed of the object observed affects the observer's measurements of the
location and spatial/temporal dimensions of the object.]

When you get to waves, is it matter or energy? From one way of looking, it is matter and from
another way of perceiving, it is energy. Buddhism calls this relationship "two facts about the same
aspect of a phenomenon" and explains it as the two sharing the same essential nature, but being
different conceptually isolated items (ngo-bo-cig ldog-pa tha-dad).

Thus, the conventional identity of the wave as a particle or as energy is a function of mental
labeling. This implies that the difference between a particle and energy must be understood in
terms of the perceiver [and is not inherent in the object itself]. This shows the close link
between cognition and matter.

In the past, classical science has also considered whether there might be some force besides
matter, whether it is consciousness or whatever. When we consider this point, then when any system,
not only Buddhist, asserts that certain phenomena are unmistaken, the issue of whether or not
something is unmistaken depends on cognition; and cognition is something internal, not external.
Cognition is what meets and is involved with objects and what does the labeling of something as
unmistaken or not.

The most detailed identification and discussion of cognition and mental labeling are undoubtedly
found in Buddhism. Within Buddhism, the various traditions of
abhidharma (special topics of knowledge) explain much about primary consciousness (gtso-sems) and mental factors (sems-byung). Tantra, specifically anuttarayoga tantra, discusses gross and subtle
consciousness and the relationship between mind and subtle energy/wind. I am quite sure that in the
next century it will become clearer that the meeting place of Western science and Eastern
philosophy will concern the relation between mind (cognition) and matter in terms of these topics.
That is the real place where East and Western science can meet.

Berzin: Is there anything in Kalachakra that can also serve as a meeting place, for
instance the discussion of subtle particles?

His Holiness: Yes, this would be in terms of subtle particles (rdul phra-rab). In general, whether or not there is mention in Vasubandhu's
Treasure-House of Special Topics of Knowledge (Chos mngon-pa'i mdzod, Skt.
Abhidharmakosha), in Kalachakra you have particles of space (nam-mka'i rdul-tshan). In empty space, there are particles of space and that is the real
basis of the progressively grosser particles, those of the four elements of earth, water, fire, and
wind (air). A previous universe disappears and there is an eon of emptiness – more specifically,
there are the eons of disintegration, followed by eons of emptiness and during the twenty
intermediate eons of emptiness, there are these particles of space. Following that, during the eons
of arising, the basis for the arising of space, wind, fire, water, and earth are the particles of
space.

Berzin: How are we to understand particles of space? Are they form (gzugs)?

His Holiness: It is probably like this. The Madhyamaka texts and the Prajnaparamita
literature assert five forms that are only among the cognitive source which is all phenomenon (chos skye-mched-gyi gzugs, forms that are only among Dharma cognitive sources). These are
forms that come from collections, those that arise from clearly taking them on [such as vows], those existing in actual situations [such as astronomical and microscopic distances between things], those
that are totally imaginary [such as those perceived in dreams], and those from gaining control of
the elements.

As for those that come from collections, they are explained as subtle particles and they have a
spherical shape (zlum-bo). These come probably in Prajnaparamita and, there, subtle particles are forms
that are only among Dharma cognitive sources. They cannot be seen by the eye. They are form,
however, but can only be known by a mind. They are spherical in shape. These are undoubtedly our
present day atoms. They are all spherical, aren't they? They really seem similar.

[Note: Form has shape and color. To say they have color implies wavelength
frequency on a spectrometer, which atoms or particles have.]

Berzin: And atoms of space?

His Holiness: What I just explained are atoms as presented in abhidharma, and I think the
particles explained in Kalachakra are even subtler than that. The abhidharma atoms -referred to as
the four elements: the elements of earth, water, fire, and wind – probably correspond here to the
Kalachakra earth particles. These are the usual things called atoms. Then, as for the particles of
space in Kalachakra, we have four subatomic particles more subtle than the abhidharma atoms. As for
what is their essential nature (ngo-bo – what they are), I don't know clearly.

There is one relevant point, however, in Maitreya's
Furthest Everlasting Continuum (rGyud bla-ma, Skt.
Uttaratantra). Externally, there is the dissolution sequence of earth, water, fire, wind,
and space; and for the generation sequence, wind, fire, water, and earth generate forth. [Note that in Uttaratantra there is no "fire."] Externally, what the
elements develop out of is space and what they dissolve into is space.

Likewise, internally, our devoid nature (chos-nyid), as a Buddha-nature factor (de-gshegs-snying-po, a womb containing a Thusly Gone One), is that from which things arise
and are collected back. When you apply this internally to the mind, space is clear light mental
activity, or the voidness of clear light, or the space of clear light.

Kalachakra discusses the space included in the space-like mental continuum (mkha'i rgyud-pa bsdu-ba nam-mkha' cig), the space included in the blue drop (thig-le mngon-po). When one can recognize this space, this space can probably be explained
as a space particle. I don't know this clearly or well. However, this is a little bit of a special
feature.

Berzin: Are these space particles static (rtag-pa, permanent)?

His Holiness: Could they really be static? No, they're not static. However, as for how
Zijin-nyingpo (gZi-byin snying-po) would explain in his commentaries, if that would make it more certain?
I don't know.

Berzin: Is it helpful for Westerners who have faith in Buddhism and who are interested in
science to study Kalachakra? Is it helpful for them to look for correlations between Kalachakra and
science?

His Holiness: I don't really know. Kalachakra itself explains many things. For instance,
someone like me, I have interest in Kalachakra and I can feel comfortable with it. I'm fitting and
proper for it, so to speak. But if some scientists were to just read through it quickly, it won't
turn out to suit their minds like this. To start with, they'll get to the presentation of external,
internal, and alternative Kalachakra and that may cause a lot of complications and problems. For
instance, the first chapter,
The World Sphere ('Jig-rten-gyi khams), explains Mount Meru and the Southern Continent, Jambudvipa. This
becomes quite messy. It is complete nonsense, isn't it?

Berzin: I heard you once say that Mount Meru might be the Milky Way.

His Holiness: Oh, I was just saying that casually. I wasn't really serious.

However, the Sakya tradition explains a relevant point about Kalachakra in conjunction with its
lamdray (lam-'bras, the path together with its results) teachings. According to this explanation,
all external phenomenon are complete in a person's body. The way of abiding (gnas-tshul, way of existing) of a person's body is that the body is complete in the
energy-channels (rtsa-la tshang). The way of abiding of the channels is that they are complete in the
syllables. [The way of abiding of syllables is that they are complete in the
constituent-source energy-drops (khams). The way of abiding of the constituent-source energy-drops
is that they are complete in the energy-winds.] The final ultimate point of this is that [the way of abiding or of existing of everything] is complete in
foundation mind (kun-gzhi rnam-shes, Skt.
alayavijnana, storehouse consciousness).

[In the lamdray system, foundation mind refers to the causal continuum of the
alaya (kun-gzhi rgyu'i rgyud), namely the subtlest clear light level of mental activity. It does
not refer to foundation mind as asserted in the Chittamatra (mind-only) system of tenets.]

Thus, with all external phenomena being complete in the human body, then on one side we can
understand this in terms of symbolism. The external four continents and Mount Meru are complete in
one human body, symbolically. Kalachakra presents something similar to this. Mount Meru is one
portion of the spine, while the planes of sensory desires (form realm), ethereal forms (form
realm), and formless beings (formless realm) are portions of the body from the soles of the feet to
the crown of the head.

[Mount Meru is the spine, from the hip joint to the bottom of the neck. The
plane of sensory desires extends from the soles of the feet to one-third up the neck, the plane of
ethereal forms from there to the forehead, and the plane of formless beings from the forehead to
the crown of the head.]

In other words, in a human body, from the soles of the feet to the top of the head, the three
planes of samsaric existence (three realms) as explained in Kalachakra, i.e. the thirty-one realms
of the world sphere, are all complete. Because of that, we can say that the human body contains
symbolism.

Then, from another side, we can explain the three realms being complete in the human body in a
different way. Our mental activity (mind) has many gross and subtle levels or aspects. In view of
this situation, then, there are, for instance, gross feelings; and, from among the gross feelings,
there is the gross feeling of pleasure.

Then, as the Great Fifth Dalai Lama said in
The Graded Stages of the Path: Personal Instructions from Manjushri (Lam-rim 'jam-dpal zhal-lung), sentient beings engage in karmic actions for the sake of
gaining the experience of feelings of pleasure and happiness. Those who seek to actualize rough
feelings of pleasure [by acting destructively] accumulate non-meritorious karma (bsod-nams ma-yin-pa'i las) [to be reborn in one of the three worse states of rebirth.] In
general, however, those whose thoughts mainly run after a feeling of pleasure from the sense organs
build up the karma for rebirth on the [worse or better states of the] plane of sensory desires [depending on whether they act destructively or constructively.]

Then, there are those who turn from desire for the feeling of pleasure externally, but who
desire the feeling of pleasure internally from absorbed concentration (ting-nge-'dzin, Skt.
samadhi) and who accumulate karma. A mind acting like that builds up karma for rebirth on
the plane of ethereal forms, from the first to the third state of mental stability (bsam-gtan, Skt.
dhyana). Those who desire a feeling of equanimity that comes internally from samadhi,
beyond the feeling of pleasure, build up the karma for rebirth in the fourth state of mental
stability [on the plane of ethereal forms].

Then, when explaining the differences between the plane of ethereal forms and the plane of
formelss beings, when after blocking appearances of all forms, you meditate on nothingness or on a
blank emptiness like space, and so on, you build up the karma for rebirth in one of the four divine
realms on the plane of formless beings: the divine realms of infinite space, infinite mind,
nothingness, or the peak of existence.

So, when you look at it from one side, since there are gross and subtle levels of mental
activity, then, under the influence of these inner gross and subtle minds[referring to gross and subtle pleasure and the desire to seek after
them], one accumulates karma. Under the power of this karma, the three planes of samsaric
existence are established and come about.

That being so, then when we say that the three planes of samsaric existence are established and
are complete in the human body through symbolism; then, thinking about it in one way, we can
understand this in terms of the influence of karma. The mind or mental activity is one aspect of
Buddha-nature (de-gshegs snying-po, source of authentic transformation); and it is under the influence of
the mind, or based on the mind, that we accumulate karma. From that, we have one way of
establishing a human body. [In other words, the body of a rebirth state comes from the mind that has
accumulating the karma for experiencing that rebirth state.]

With this [establishment of the physical body from karma] as a circumstance, we
can also establish [from the Buddha-nature mind accumulating karma] the physical place of
the plane of sensory desires, in which such humans primarily live. There is undoubtedly this
special feature.

That being so, then Mount Meru and so on explained in Kalachakra, in reality, have a deeper
meaning. They are mainly referring to the abiding situation of the body of a human being of the
Southern Continent (Jambudvipa). The presentation of an external Jambudvipa is there in Kalachakra
because of the necessity for explaining the relation between the external and internal worlds -
each of them symbolize and are parallel to the other. In that sense, it is not necessary that Mount
Meru exist as a giant mountain standing somewhere in reality in some separate location.

Berzin: Serkong Rinpoche said that Mount Meru in Kalachakra looks as though it is over
your head and about to fall on you. What is that referring to?

His Holiness: In the
Abhidharmakosha, Mount Meru is square and here, in Kalachakra, it is round and gets larger
on top. Jambudvipa is around the bottom of it so that when you look up the wider top portion of
Mount Meru, it appears hanging over your head. Thus, it looks as if it is about to fall.

Berzin: The qualities of a Buddha include the ability to take any worldly teaching and
turn it into a path for Dharma. This requires, however, skillful means. My question concerns how to
develop the skillful means to do something similar at our levels.

For example, in
The Sadhana Chapter (sGrub-le) of
The Kalachakra Tantra, concerning the hidden point of yajna sacrifices and so on in the
Vedas (mchod-sbyin-la-sogs-pa rig-byed-gyi gsang-ba'i mtha'), the text explains that when the
Vedas say to sacrifice animals, this is like the close bonds (dam-tshig) in Guhyasamaja or Kalachakra to take life. To take life has a metaphorical
meaning (dgongs-can) and means to dissolve the life-supporting winds.

Further, when the
Vedas speak of the indestructible soundnada (mi-zhoms-pa'i sgra), we are to understand this means the undissipating drop (mi-shigs-pa'i thig-le) and the sound quality of the space element.

In other places, however, for instance in
The World Sphere Chapter (Khams-le), when the King explains astrology to the
rishi sage Suryaratha (Drang-srong Nyi-ma'i shing-rta), he says that talk in the
Vedas of the Brahma realms being 10,000,000 yojanas in size is a lie.

Thus, we can conclude that sometimes what the
Vedas say are symbolic metaphors and sometimes assertions of lies.

Similarly, in
The Great Commentary to the Kalachakra Tantra (Tik-chen), Kaydrubjey (mKhas-grub-rje dGe-legs dpal-bzang) explains that sometimes Buddha said things had true
inherent existence (bden-grub), but he had another intention and it was merely a metaphor. However, Buddha
never said there is a static, monolithic, independent self. That would be a lie.

If that is the case, then when explaining Dharma to Westerners and talking about Western
religions and science, how do we differentiate what can be said to be symbolic metaphors and what
are lies? My reason for asking is that it is very easy to make up cute analogies for Kalachakra.
Sometimes, things in Kalachakra and in Western religions and science would be analogies of each
other, but sometimes things in one or the other systems would be lies.

His Holiness: The tantras and sutras are the ultimate authority, we aren't. Unless there
is a scriptural reference in them, there is no need for us to make these things up and assert that
Buddha had in mind an analogy with Western religion or science.

Berzin: Christianity speaks of love, so is this like our love in Buddhism? Can we speak
like that?

His Holiness: Christianity teaches love toward God and love toward fellow human beings.
When they say we should love God, they mean we should keep God close to our hearts, and we should
like him and love him. Buddhism also teaches having respect for and liking the Buddha. Christianity
says we should have a warm heart and feelings, not for all beings including bugs, but specifically
for our fellow human beings. So, if we speak very roughly, we can understand this to be like our
love in Buddhism and it is the same.

However, as for Christian talk about a creator, if we say that in Buddhist terms this can be
understood to be voidness, although we could make such an interpretation, this will not do. For
instance, you could say that voidness, as a womb containing a Thusly Gone One, (as a Buddha-nature
factor) is the creator. It is formless, unimaginable, and can't be put in words, as is God.
Although you could say that, I doubt that speaking like that will really do. I don't think that's
OK.

Like that, when it comes to philosophy, there are disagreements. Buddhism does not assert a
creator in the way that Christianity asserts God as the creator. Buddhism does not accept that.
Buddhism would say that ultimately one's own mind is, in a sense, a creator, but there is no
ultimate Almighty Creator. We can speak like that and explain it like that.

Berzin: So it would be best not to say that what science says is just like Buddhism?

His Holiness: Science has the same approach as Buddhism does. I think that from this point
of view, they come to the same thing. That is one of the basic Buddhist attitudes. For instance,
there are two types of distorted antagonistic attitudes (log-lta): those that are interpolations (sgro-'dogs) and those that are totally imaginary (kun-brtags-kyi log-lta) [equivalent to repudiations (skur-'debs)]. What do these categories refer to? An
antagonistic attitude believing that something that exists does not exist is a distorted attitude
that repudiates. One that believes that something that does not exist does exist is a distorted
attitude of interpolation.

For instance, if Mount Meru exists and we say it doesn't, that is a distorted attitude. If it
doesn't exist and we say it does, that also is a distorted attitude. That means that whatever is
the fact, that is what we accept. For instance, if on the ground, there is an elephant and it is
visible, we should see it because it is visible. Using this line of reasoning, if something exists
(and is visible), we should see it. And, if it should be visible and we don't see it, then it
doesn't exist.

So like that, concerning whether or not Mount Meru exists, when you explore in spacecrafts and
if definitely it should be visible – because it is described as an object of the eye sensors – and
if we don't see it – of course, if it is something that exists but it can't be seen, that is
something completely different – but if it is the case that if it exists it has to be visible, then
if it can't be seen, we can decide that it doesn't exist. Since the texts say that Mount Meru does
exist, then except for them being of interpretable meaning, [there is no other possibility].

If we research scientifically, then if something exists we should be able to confirm it
decisively – for instance, the diameters of the sun and the moon. I don't remember the exact
figures, but the diameter of the sun is much greater than that of the moon. We can see this with
valid visual perception; it's been seen. However,
Abhidharmakosha says that the diameter of the moon is fifty yojanas and that of the sun is
fifty-one – only one yojana difference.

Now, let's leave aside the possibility that Mount Meru exists but just can't be seen (because
it's invisible); we can directly see the size of the sun and the moon. We can see the sun and the
moon and, if the sun and moon are visible, it can't be that we cannot see their sizes. We can see
their orbs. We can feel their heat; we can see their orbits; and we can see their sizes. Since we
can see them, then when we look at them, we can see there is a big difference.

So, when
Abhidharmakosha says their diameters are fifty and fifty-one yojanas respectively, this
has to be refuted as an interpretable level of meaning. To say that what we see in terms of
mathematical calculations is not the case – that it's a deceptive appearance – and what Vasubhandu
said in the
Kosha about their being fifty and fifty-one yojanas is true, we couldn't possibly say
that. That is the basic Buddhist attitude: when there is a scientific finding that has been proven,
we must accept it.

When science doesn't find something, there are two possibilities: the not finding of something
that doesn't exist and the case of even though something exists, it can't be found. They are
different. For instance, about past and future lives and not being able to prove them
scientifically, it is just that scientists cannot find them, but that doesn't prove that they don't
exist.

Berzin: Both Kaydrubjey and Kaydrub Norzang-gyatso (mKhas-grub Nor-bzang rgya-mtsho) said in their Kalachakra commentaries that if the basis
for purification (sbyang-gzhi) is not established as valid, it is difficult to establish the validity of a
pathway mind that does the purifying. If that is the case, what is a skillful way to present to
Westerners that the outer and inner bases for purification in Kalachakra are valid?

His Holiness: As for the outer environment as a basis to be purified, it doesn't have to
especially be exactly as described in Kalachakra, but in general there is a basis to be purified.
There is an external environment: that is external Kalachakra. There is internal situation: that is
internal Kalachakra. It is very simple. They are bases to be purified.

Berzin: But specifically, we meditate on the generation stage in analogy with Mount Meru,
the four elements, and so on.

His Holiness: There are four elements: earth, water, fire, and wind. There is no need that
they be specifically like this or like that. As for Mount Meru, since there are sides and since
there are directions [in the galaxy], there must be a center- that's Mount Meru. It is not
necessarily this shape or that size.

Berzin: Kalachakra meditation, however, does entail meditation with a pathway mind that
purifies and is in analogy with the basis for purification. Should we explain in terms of this?

His Holiness: Yes, definitely explain it. There are these things, but no need to explain
how many rocks are on top of Mount Meru, just as there is no need to explain or assert how many
trees are in the world or how many mountains. In general, however, there is a world (Jambudvipa).
Setting that as a basis for purification is sufficient.

For instance, for purifying our aggregates there is the purifying of the energy-channels, but
there is no need for an exact count of these and those channels. Similarly, our aggregates are to
be purified, but there is no need to explain, or assert, or know the number of atoms or molecules
in them.

[Thus, we may conclude that the specific count in Kalachakra of the energy
channels, and so on, is an illustrative one. It allows us to work with them in parallel
astrological, medical, and meditation systems with visualizations of a certain number of
Buddha-figures with certain numbers of arms and so on. The actual count, however, is not just
arbitrary. It has the authority of Buddha and scriptures. We need a middle way: neither the extreme
of taking the scriptures totally literally as if they were dogma, nor the extreme of taking what
they say as totally arbitrary and therefore having no respect for them or thinking there is no
point to them.]

For instance, we have twelve billion brain cells in our bodies. There is no necessity to have
twelve billion paths that purify them. [Thus, we use only the illustrative numbers chosen by Buddha, a valid
authority, who had many other purposes in mind when giving them. For instance, the authoritative
scriptural texts enumerate fifty-one mental factors (sems-byung). These are not all of them, but an
illustrative number chosen for specific purposes.]

So, just think that the body has, in general, energy-channels, energy-winds, and
constituent-source energy-drops, and that these three are to be purified. Likewise, there is the
external environment, the four elements, the continents and subcontinents, and they too are to be
purified.

Now, as for Mount Meru being round, what could that be? That is difficult to explain. However,
the Milky Way does have a center around which it revolves. The Milky Way is one billion light years
across, so it has a center. We could set that as Mount Meru and then the shape may be OK, since it
bulges at the top and is round.

Berzin: The internal Kalachakra teachings explain the energy-winds and so on. What is the
relation of internal Kalachakra and Tibetan medicine?

His Holiness: I don't know in detail. However, the certificates [given for completing Tibetan medical studies] mention
The Meaning of the Profound Inner (Chapter) (Zab-mo nang-don) [a sub-commentary by the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje (Kar-ma-pa Rang-byung rdo-rje) on the second chapter of the
commentary to The Kalachakra Condensed Tantra (bsDus-rgyud) by Pundarika, Stainless Light (Dri-med 'od, Skt. Vimalaprabha).] Because of this mention, I wonder
what the connection is between the study of medicine and the study of this commentary. I had hoped
to see it. If its explanation of the energy-channels, winds, and drops is the same as in the
complete stage of Kalachakra, then on the basis of this we would know there to be a connection with
general Tibetan medicine in terms of those points. Otherwise, I don't know.

Now if you ask what specific points in Tibetan medicine derive from Kalachakra, there is the
formula for making one of the precious pills
ngulchu-tsodey (dngul-chu rtso-sde) out of mercury. This comes from
The Kalachakra Condensed Tantra. There is some mention of it in
The Hevajra Two-Chapter Tantra (rTags-gnyis), but much more explanation in Kalachakra. The making of
ngulchu-tsodey pills comes from the practice of the [fourteenth-century]Nyingmamahasiddha Drubtob Ogyen-lingpa (Grub-thob O-rgyan gling-pa). He was a great practitioner of Kalachakra and had great
realizations of it. There is that connection. But, as for more of a connection with general Tibetan
medicine, I don't know.